In this 2008 photo made available by the American Library Association, Sally Ride, foreground, and her longtime partner Tam O' Shaughnessy discuss the role of women in science during an ALA conference in Anaheim, Calif.

Related

Sally Ride was the first American woman in outer space. Upon hearing the news of her death last week, media outlets and celebrities alike celebrated Ride as a hero. But under federal law, Ride’s domestic partner of 27 years will not receive death benefits or Social Security payments. Is that any way to treat a hero?

Even though the majority of Americans now support the right of same-sex couples to marry and more states are embracing marriage equality, 1,138 federal benefits, including Social Security and family medical leave, are still denied to same-sex couples even if they’re married because of the Defense of Marriage Act enacted in 1996. And while 60% of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic-partnership benefits to employees — so unmarried same- or opposite-sex partners qualify for health insurance, paid family leave and more — the federal government does not.

According to NASA documents, Sally Ride’s domestic partner Tam O’Shaughnessy could receive life-insurance payments if Ride designated O’Shaughnessy as her beneficiary. But despite the fact that our nation owes Ride a debt of gratitude for her unique service, our nation will not be paying her life partner the survivor annuity and basic death benefits provided to the surviving family members of heterosexual astronauts.

Obituaries say Ride left NASA right around the time she began her relationship with O’Shaughnessy. They went on to start a business, Sally Ride Science, and lived together in San Diego. Ride did not broadcast her relationship but didn’t hide it either, according to her sister Karen “Bear” Ride. Had Ride worked at NASA while living with O’Shaughnessy, the discrimination would have been even more pronounced. According to NASA documents, Ride could not have qualified for extended family medical leave to care for her partner or get health or life insurance for her. And if Ride had, God forbid, died during a space mission, O’Shaughnessy would not have received those death benefits either.

This is not the fault of NASA, which seems in its policies to do everything possible to recognize and respect domestic partnerships within the constraints of the law. Rather, this is a discriminatory federal policy that affects all government employees and, since same-sex marriages are not recognized for federal purposes under the Defense of Marriage Act, all Americans. In May, a Senate committee on homeland security and government affairs passed legislation that would extend federal benefits to same-sex domestic partners. The bill enjoys support from Republicans and Democrats, but it remains stalled in Congress.

Of course, it’s important to recognize that we’ve come a long way. In 1983, when Ride became the first American woman in space, if she had been openly gay or even discovered to be quietly in a relationship with a woman, she would have likely been denied security clearance and possibly fired. Since then, the government has revised its practice of denying security clearances on the basis of sexual orientation. But that doesn’t change the fact that hundreds of thousands of federal employees still face discrimination for being gay, including what benefits are available to their partners.

When Sally Ride was in the space shuttle, risking her life for the United States government, she enjoyed a view out the window that most of us can only imagine — a glowing blue and green orb of humanity idealized at a distance. Sadly, on the ground, the reality of how we treat one another can be far more ugly. We should spend less time puzzling over why Ride remained quietly in the closet and was not an activist for gay rights and focus our critique on the laws and systems of injustice for federal workers and their same-sex partners. Sally Ride was the first American woman in outer space. Our government should not treat her partner like an alien.

LEARN a foreign language. Forget English. That should help. 26 year heterosexual domestic partner widow here, US Citizens, death from a work accident in the USA, raised a sick child together... walked into the wrong office and kicked out.. appealed at home state PA and years in court.. lost. One wonders who will get that social security money. Not the family that earned it.

Having been in a 31 year heterosexual domestic partnership I believe domestic partnerships should be recognized as a legal relationships period whether it is between a man and woman or man and man or woman and woman. A marriage license doesn't make a marriage. It's nothing more than more legalese, a contract that someone felt was a necessity at a certain time in history. A marriage license is not a commitment.

A marriage license should not be your only ticket to shared benefits including insurance and social security. I hope no one thinks Social Security benefits are a "free hand out' here. Most working people have paid into this system all their working lives and deserve that money plus any interest on it when they retire or the surviving designee(s) of their choice deserve it not the government.

The assumption here is that because it sucks that her partner doesn't get benefits is that it should be changed. I agree you should be able to leave your benefits to any one person that you pick. Gay, child,neighbor, etc....What would make me happier than that would be to do away with ALL government giveaways. Let people come up with their own individual retirement and let the government stay out ALL TOGETHER. Personal responsibility. I don't care who is gay, straight or polka dotted. Stop taking social security out of our paychecks and let people get their own individual life insurance to protect their family if something happens to them. More government rules is not the answer. Less is the answer. There should be NO rules regarding marriage, to anyone. There should be no marriage tax break and for that matter NO income tax. If a national sales tax were implemented then the richer, or those who buy more would pay more, as well as people who currently " cheat" on their reported income, etc.... You liberals and republicans get it all wrong and think that more rules means help for "certain groups". The individual is the most stomped on minority in the US. Less Government, Less Government. Their should be NO definition of marriage except by the individual or their church etc... If their were no economic perks for marriage, their would be none of this arguing about "who" should be married. Though morally, I am opposed to gay marriage I certainly don't care if others choose that. If you force me to "choose" to support it then it pisses me off. It makes more sense to take ANY state or federal endorsement for anyones marriage away. Who cares, is what I say.

it isn't a republican or democratic way (and those who are playing that stupid game are a big part of the problem) It is how AMERICANS teat their own. Just the same way we treat our vets, our homeless .. our poor .. we have become a country of "me" not "us". It's disgusting and makes us look like selfish little children to the world.

This article emphasizes the fact that equal rights for EVERYONE needs to be a Federal mandate, not state. There are too many rights and benefits not given if the Federal Government does not step in and make it official.

This is not the only travesty to occur between a committed marriage between two consenting adults. Annie Leibovitz spent hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of her money in supporting her partner Susan during her battle with cancer. Sadly, Susan succumbed and Annie lost her long time love. Adding insult to injury, as NYS didn't recognize their marriage, Annie lost half of everything they owned and was taxed heavily, a privledge awarded to their married counterparts. It cost Annie everything, almost her life savings, just to keep the home they lived in.

As well, years ago two women ventured from Washington State to Florida for a cruise with their children. As life partner's for many years, right before boarding one of the suffered a major aneurism, leaving her in critical care in a Florida hospital. Her partner was denied the right in being with her as she was not considered a family member. A nurse was on record during the ensuing law suit as stating "If you don't like the laws, move" (paraphrasing of course). Her partner died without being by her side.

This could all be remedied if any politician, Republican or Democrat, grew the ****s to say enough is enough and make it a Federal issue, not state. While strides in equal rights have been made, many have placed us further behind. North Carolina decided on banning same sex marriage this year, and some states are following their lead.

Until our government steps in and gives the same rights to those who deserve it, we are not all "created equal" and discrimination is alive and well in the United States.

Why do you put words in people's mouths, or attribute to them things which were never spoken?

I have never heard ANY Christian (Except those wacko's at Westboro Baptist) say homosexuality is a crime or against the law.

Now, as far as your comparison of the homosexual/Christian disagreement with that of islam/Christian problem.

Christians DON'T BEHEAD homosexuals. Christians don't circle a homosexual club or bath house, stand outside with guns, light the building on fire, and shoot any trying to escape. Muslims do that to Christians DAILY!

Your analogy is about as intolerant and hateful as any I have EVER heard.

Maybe you need, scratch that, YOU NEED to EDUCATE yourself a little, A LOT, about Christianity and islam, and the stands of both on free speech, freedom of religion, or just freedom in general.

Chick-fil-A: The homosexual community attacked Chick-fil-A (only the latest in many attacks against those with a different opinion that homosexuals), because the CEO said he is a Christian, homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexual marriage is wrong. Not only did the homosexuals attack Chick-fil-A, but every group they set money to. They also attack the ENTIRE CHRISTIAN FAITH!

I am a Born Again Christian, and I believe the Word of God. God says homosexuality is a sin. End of discussion.

But OH NO, the homosexuals don't like that, so they attack anybody who disagrees with them.

I went to a church ((Baptist) and we had a Evangelist come to speak. He was known for his anti-homosexual stand. The reaction was unbelievable. Homosexuals BUSSED in hundreds of homosexuals to disrupt the services. Vandalized cars, property, harassed the Congregants, assaulted some, disrupted services with cursing, name calling and just general hate.

Now, you wish to discuss "tolerance" with me or any Christian?

My bad, I forgot, "tolerance" to homosexuals (and liberals in general) is "Tolerate what we want and believe ONLY. IF it doesn't agree with OUR (liberal) opinions, it is HATE SPEECH, HOMOPHOBIC, INTOLERANT.

Yeah, tolerance, what a laugh.

Oh, and since we are on islam, did you know that islam KILLS homosexuals? Now, try and run homosexual marriage by them

All LGBT+ and community allies.... please come join me and 15,000+ of your soon to be great connections on LinkedIn. The member base represents 80% of the world's countries. As well as the down stream in my LInkedIn personal connections that reach over 24 million potential live stream viewers on LinkedIn alone.

The group is strictly professional office friendly dialog, posting and profiles / profile images. I've been told by many that it may well be one of the best run / managed groups on LinkedIn.

You can be as out or private as you like and I provide instructions on how to set those preferences (In the Manager's Choice area).

It's core value is - Visibility can lead to awareness which can lead to equality. Come stand with us and increase our visibility on the globe's largest professional networking site. Be a professional who just happens to be LGBT - or a welcomed community ally.

Every State, EVERY State that has put up homosexual marriage to a vote, it (proposal for homosexual marriage) has been OVERWHELMINGLY DEFEATED.

But, it does not matter what the people want in a Democratic Republic, no, only what 3% of the population wants is what matters.

Like MA. They were ORDERED by the Court to pass a homosexual marriage law.

The Courts DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER ANY LEGISLATION.

That is the Legislatures job. The Courts only rule on the legality of a particular law brought before them.

Like homosexuals always demanding "tolerance" and "acceptance", yet, when, let's say, oh, Christians, who believe and live the Word of God say that homosexuality is a sin and wrong, well, they are just "intolerant, bigoted, homophobic haters".

Now, that sounds REAL tolerant of others views, doesn't it?

You know, you MUST tolerate OUR point of view, but to hell with YOUR point of view.

Oh, forgot. Liberals, they expect you to tolerate all their garbage, but have NO TOLERANCE for ANYONE who disagrees with them. Liberal = Hypocrite.

Homosexual = Hypocrite.

And Chick-fil-A is a PRIME example.

Since the CEO believes in God, and believes in Jesus Christ, and believes the Bible is the Word of God, and that the word of God says homosexuality is a sin, well, "that's just intolerant, we have to put them put of business".

So, if the homosexuals want tolerance, they will need to SHOW tolerance. Yeah, like that will ever happen.

Oh, one further thing. Christians DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS. We hate the SIN, but not the sinner. I know you liberals will never be able to understand that.

She (Rides lesbian lover) does not deserve any type of payments of any kind in regards to Sally Ride.

I realize that homosexual partners deserve more rights then heterosexual "partners", and they (homosexuals) deserve special laws and concessions that nobody else gets, but the U.S. hasn't yet gotten to the point where we completely ignore the Constitution, and it's "Equal Protection under the Law" and allow homosexauls to have whatever, whenever they want.

When the laws that apply to homosexual "domestic partners" is EQUALLY applied to heterosexual "domestic partners", maybe then an article like this would be appropriate.

But for now, it's just PANDERING to a "special interest group" for special rights.

Now, I am going to Chick-fil-A for a nice chicken sandwich. Gotta show my support for a company that has been unduly harassed by bigoted, intolerant, hateful, hypocritical homosexuals for having a belief that differs from theirs.

Sally Ride is a hero and her partner should receive benefits. However, the majority of Americans do not support gay marriage, and witnessed by the fact that every state that has brought it up for a vote has defeated it. I wish the dumbass liberal media would report the facts and not their agenda. You say more states are embracing marriage equality, but the reality is that only 7 states have embraced it, and of those, at least one is getting ready to put it to the public for a vote, where it will be defeated again. Maybe, Liberal Media, if you stopped pushing your agenda so hard, lying about it at ever chance you get, the public might respond better to equal rights for all.

Difficult to tackle this subject without offending somebody which is not what I intend to do. For the record I believe that people have the right to live as they chose and not by imposed ideas from others, I will also state I am heterosexual.

If we can separate the topic of marriage as a legal covenant from the religious significant I believe everybody will be happier. The legal covenat would take care of the main issues presented in the article, by separating them from the religious covenant we also protect the people that prefer to follow their religious beliefs.

In Napoleonic code there is a clear separation between a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony, only the civil ceremony has legal standing, the religious ceremony means nothing in a court of law.

Perhaps we screwed up when we mixed them into a single ceremony and we have rabbis, priests, ministers, etc performing marriage civil ceremonies "by the power invested in me (fill your state)".

Sally Ride was no hero - just a federal employee. Army Joes who put their lives on the line for our country (for our lives) are bona fide heroes. The fact is there were people standing in line for her job. If anything, she was a fabricated "hero".

We haven't heard from Tam, and I doubt that we will. She deserves to be treated by our government as a spouse, but it's up to her if she wants to publicly pursue it. I wish her happiness and peace of mind, whatever that means to her.

This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is a People issue. Lets get past the BS politics and recognize that this is an unfair, disrespectful, unpatriotic and just plain sad situation. This is no way to treat a real American hero. Think of how you might feel if Sally Ride was your Sister, Mother, Aunt or good friend. Try to empathize before your start with the emotional irrational rants.

This is sad, pathetic, unfair and basically un-American. What kind of way is this to treat a true American hero? This is not a Democratic or Republican issues it is a People issue. It speaks to how we should all be treated by our society.

Let's see... the death benefit is $255 and only goes to the surviving spouse, not to any other family member. It is true that her long time partner cannot get the continuing SS benefits but, then, that wouldn't amount to much either since Ms Ride was 61 and not eligible for SS yet. But her surviving spouse could have the full benefits at age 66.

The idea behind the survivor benefits was to help insure the surviving spouse and family had something to fall back on.

Ms Ride and Ms O'Shaugnessy knew well in advance of her (Ride's) death what they would be facing and would have made plans accordingly. Just as hundreds of thousands of unmarried heterosexual couples do, or should do. This is not a case of someone in financial straits because of the unexpected death of the primary breadwinner.

Allowing for "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" could easily be done. If the Congress had the will to do so. But then the gay community would have to accept the "civil union" as equivalent to marriage.

There is an easy way to fix this situation ... treat it like you would treat two fighting siblings. If both of you can't have the benefits, then NONE of you should have them. Get govt. out of marriage completely since it doesn't belong there in the first place.

Republicans and Democrats alike sang Ride's praises when she flew, but now the former have disavowed her solely because of her sexual orientation--as if she had deceived us into letting her fly. What business is it of ours? How does it detract from her achievement? Shame on everyone who would deny her partner of 27 years the survivor's benefits that she'd be paid as if she were a man. Please don't say it's against God's will to have a partner of the same sex. If God Hates Gays, as so many bumper stickers say, why does He keep making them? They don't reproduce, so there must be something in utero which turns them into homosexuals. What business is it of ours to question God's actions? He moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform. Either He is omnipotent and keeps making homosexuals, or He is not omnipotent and can't fix the in utero changes; you can't have it both ways.

You are missing the point. No one cares about your reading of the bible. The question is whether or not the majority can keep rights away from the minority. You seem to think the LBGT community wants something extra, but they don't. The surviving partner of Ms. Ride should have everything her husband would have had.

You have the freedom to hate homosexuality, Muslims, immigrants, Jews, black people, or whomever you want. But it is un-American to say "you can't have the same rights because you look/act differently." We are supposed to have a separation of Church and State. It's time to make that dream a reality.But if you want to live in a country ruled by religious text, feel free to move to Saudi Arabia.

And they're not asking for "special rights." That's a canard. They just wants the rights that everyone else gets: to live without being systematically harrassed, to marry the persons they love, and to be able to be "next of kin" for emergencies and so forth. They want to get the same benefits for their spouses and themselves that everyone else gets.

What's so "special" about that? I'm sorry that you have the idea that there are some groups who don't deserve equal rights, but, really, I think that as a nation, we're beyond that.

You know, the difference is that what Christians believe has the backing of law. Your belief that homosexuality is a crime means the some people aren't allowed to marry. Something that even if sinful in your view harms no one. Unless homosexual marriages caused the breakdown of Kim Kardashian's marriage.

And if indeed 3% of the population doesn't matter, then no Christian should complain that Christians minorities in Muslim countries don't get to worship as they wish, or that the Muslim majority needs to tolerate Christians in any way.

Tolerance, by the way, works better coming from the majority who have the power. 3% of the population isn't going to put Chick-fil-A out of business, so the tolerance you ask for is irrelevant.

But let's put it to the test, if gay people said ok, we'll eat at Chick-fil-A, would you vote to allow them to marry?

One more thing, if you don't hate homosexual people, but only homosexuality (the sin), why is this entire post about the people?

Straight couples are granted a commonwealth marriage if living together for a certain amount of time (usually 7+ years)...why ask questions and then, without an answer to your first question, provoke a biased follow up question?

Yes. He would have received benefits. As do other "male hetero" (or, for that matter, male homo, considering that homosexual men often marry women for various reasons) spouses of women in both government and private employment.

Since ALL legal marriages have to have a silly piece of paper called a MARRIAGE LICENSE, it is the government's place to regulate them. Just because you get married in a church doesn't make it legal without the license. Let's get religion out of marriage and make all of them civil unions (which they already are) and make them legal for all not just the "christian" ones.

I'm an atheist, but several of my Christian friends have explained to me their line of reasoning regarding why God would create homosexuals if he disapproved of it. They tell me it's because God allows people to sin, which is why there are murderers and thieves and adulterers - they're all just going to go to hell on Judgment Day. The problem with that argument though, is that it assumes that homosexuality is a choice and not a permanent state of being, which I disagree with. Even if it is a sin, and homosexuals are going to hell, then the anti-gay marriage people are just really cruel by punishing them before the afterlife. Let God judge these people, if you're so inclined to believe in all of this.

Regardless of whether or not Christians think it's a sin, we shouldn't allow religion to deny other people rights.

I have found in my 55 years of living, that there is no such thing as a true atheist, but that's another discussion.

GOD DID NOT MAKE PEOPLE HOMOSEXUAL. PERIOD.

IT IS A CHOICE, plain and simple. IT IS A CHOICE.

I have YET to be proven wrong on this, but you are welcome to try.

God did give man free choice, free will. They can either listen to him, or make their own decisions. If they choose that which is against God, how is that God's fault?

Homosexuality is a sin. Just like adultery, fornication, murder, theft etc are all also sins.

So, if someone is a murderer, did God MAKE them a murderer? NO, they chose to do so.

And homosexuality is the same way. You may have those thoughts and/or desires, but it is the INDIVIDUAL that decides to give into their lust, or not to. IT IS A CHOICE!

Don't blame God for YOUR bad decisions.

Now, you saying that if homosexuals are going to hell, then it is cruel to not allow them to marry, is a B.S. argument and you know it. I can't even believe you said it. Oh, wait, yes I can, Liberals and homosexuals will use any argument, no matter how lame to try and make their point.

Then there is the "tolerance" DEMANDED by the homosexual community, yet the homosexual community is INTOLERANT of ANY views they disagree with.

Can you say Chick-fil-A? Can you say Christian Groups on College Campuses? (Oh, wait, they are being thrown OFF of campuses because of their lifestyles).

'The problem with that argument though, is that it assumes that homosexuality is a choice and not a permanent state of being,

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/... gay is not a choice. But on the same hand neither is being lazy, angry stingy, selfish or lustful. Yet we do have the choice whether or not to act on it. As an adult I would expect you to realize that you don’t have to act on the way you feel. I truly feel sorry for this part of the world when they resort to lame arguments like the one you just made.

$255, to be exact. It doesn't pay for a cremation, much less an actual burial, and it is granted only to the surviving spouse, not the children. I know, my widowed mother passed away in 2008 and I was immediately told that I couldn't get that benefit (even though I had not asked for it in any way, I was just registering her death so they could stop the SS payments).

If its about those who might need it, this (ride and her partner) is a poor example to use. If it's simply about "fairness" (of which, life has actually none) then no one dismisses that. Certainly not me. In fact, I have no problem with expanding benefits to those who are in registered committed relationships. It's why I support the "civil union" concept. In fact, I think Congress should pass a bill making all current marriages "civil unions"... because I firmly believe the state has no business in regulating, or being involved in, what is a religious status.

In my opinion, the state's only concern with such relationships is when they dissolve. At that point, there may be innocents (offspring or adopted minor children) and property to distribute. I understand why there are, but do not support (though I take advantage of), joint filing tax breaks. In those cases, the total income should be divided by the number of partners and each partner taxed at the appropriate rate.

It's not just Social Security's burial benefits (that's the 200 and some odd dollars due at death). It's survivor's benefits. One of the reasons why gay people are seeking the same status is for these benefits for their survivors and their children. And it's not, strictly speaking, whether in this particular case, the survivor "needs" it.

"Sally Ride risked her life for her country, and yet her domestic partner of 27 years will not get her government benefits. Is that any way to treat a hero?"

"1,138 federal benefits, including Social Security and family medical

leave, are still denied to same-sex couples even if they’re married

because of the Defense of Marriage Act enacted in 1996"

"But that doesn’t change the fact that hundreds of thousands of federal

employees still face discrimination for being gay, including what

benefits are available to their partners.""Our government should not treat her partner like an alien."I can quote a lot more from the comments made here. Apparently, you are as dense as most liberals. Take the blinders off.

Those who claim homosexuality is a "choice" are obviously bisexual, since bisexuals CAN go either way. They wouldn't have this information firsthand if they were purely heterosexual. Why the heck would anyone make an assumption about something they haven't experienced?

It sucks they cannot act on their urges due to sky gods and whatnot. Oh well!

If God were really opposed to homosexuality, he would simply make it impossible.

Now, I think that God really abhors for anyone to put his elbow into his own ear. My reason for thinking this is that unless very serious damage is done to the arm structure, it's not happening. If God is actually omnipotent, he could surely arrange that there would never be the possibility of two people of the same gender finding each other attractive. He could also certainly arrange things so that no orifice other than the female genital one would "work" for sexuality.

But this isn't quite the case, is it? Instead, we have all sorts of possibilities and combinations, and a lot of very old prejudices masquerading as "God's Will."

A perversion? Do you actually believe this? I'm a Belgian and here in Europe it's very normal for same sex people to marry and have all the same rights as everyone else.

And yes, this does even mean catholic weddings! You pretend to know what God wants or what he has created. I on the other hand learned from the priests and nuns at school that we should be forgiving and should not act as if we can judge our fellow (wo)men. What do you have against gay people other than the fact that they bother you? Try to accept that God has created all kind of people and give up pretending to know God's intentions. Be forgiving and humble, and let go of the judging.

Why can't it be a part of evolution? There could easily be a recessive allele that determines homosexuality, so it gets passed down even if the parents aren't gay. Recessive alleles that aren't suited for natural selection show up in only a small percentage of a given population and take a long time to die out. In this case, homosexuality would be just as immutable as the color of your skin or your eyes. But there's no conclusive evidence yet, since our understanding of genetics is still really really incomplete.

I don't think it's nearly as simple as you would think, and nowhere did I say that God took credit for creating homosexuals.

I would assume he created homosexuals because, with the heterosexual divorce rate at 50% for first marriages, 67% for second marriages and 74% for third marriages....he figured the heterosexual thing just wasn't working out.

And I truly feel sorry for you that your worldview is so uninformed or narrow-minded that you equate homosexuality with being lazy, angry, stingy, selfish, or hateful. A better analogy for your argument would be suggesting that heterosexuals don't have to act on their being heterosexual - which I am sure you would think absurd - not unlike what you're suggesting homosexuals do.

Let me just say that I'd rather be a compassionate, empathetic adolescent than a hateful, ignorant adult.

"You don't have to act on the way you feel." As a super intelligent and rational adult, I would expect you to understand the concept of free will. Yes, we try to stop murderers from acting on their desire to kill other people, because that desire hurts other people. Who gets hurt or loses rights when gay people marry? Do gay people's happiness make you less happy? Does allowing them to marry each other make your marriage less special? Does it ruin the "sanctity of marriage" that Newt Gingrich supports with his three overlapping marriages? Does it ruin the sanctity of Britney Spears' and Kevin Federline's marriage? Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries'? Elizabeth Taylor's seven or eight marriages? If marriage is so sacred, why do 50% of marriages end in divorce?